Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
checks. that's helped them win more elections in red states and people like harry reid get elected in nevada, a pretty pro-gun state. the question is, is that going to be productive for people who want to see gun control get passed? will this mean an increased prag ma tichl, mean that the issue has a better chance of getting through? >> and what's the answer to that question? do we know? >> i don't have a crystal ball, but if you talk to people who support gun control, they have been beaten down for a long time, losing consistently for 20 years will do that to you. and they feel better than they ever have. there is, as you know, a lot of momentum behind this issue. a democratic president who has the bully pulpit who is using this on his agenda and now we have even some republicans coming to the table and signaling that there may be some kind of bipartisan action that can get through congress on gun control. that would be the first time since the brady bill in 1993, if that happens. >> molly ball from "the atlantic," thank you very much. >>> first lady michelle obama will go to chic
haven't seen a solution from the president or harry reid. the republicans have put our plan on the table and passed it through the house of representatives. now it is incumbent upon the president to show leadership. >> let's turn to hagel. the nomination of course something taken up once the break is over. this is bob woodward on fox news talking about democratic senators calling the white house asking if hagel was going to withdraw. this is what he said was the white house response. >> the answer is an emphatic no. remember john urlicman used to talk about twisting slowly in the wind. >> why wouldn't the white house jump to hagel's defense? >> i think they have. had john mccain out this weekend. the expectation is that senator hagel is going to -- that vote is going to happen and he will be our next secretary of defense. what i think is deplorable and john mccain was very honest this weekend and part of what prompted some of democrat's questions. republicans made it clear this is a grudge match. lindsey graham is saying he is not going to vote on this or won't move on this until he find
and need more time. it was harry reid who called this vote as sort of an attempt to call their bluff saying this is enough, you're delaying this for no reason but i don't think this is going to help the republicans' image especially when they're going around saying we're not actually trying to stop this nomination. we're not actually filibustering, so what are they doing? i think especially for people who are sick of the sort of washington games, this isn't a good image for them. >> jake, let's talk about this break that congress is on. house speaker nancy pelosi blamed republicans for not using this time more productively. take a listen. >> they manufactured the crisis and instead of having us try to avert that crisis they go on a nine-day recess. why? ? why? people outside the congress are saying no deal, no break. >> why, jake, why? >> nancy pelosi did similar things when she had control but that simplifies a complicated issue. democrats and republicans and the president are miles apart when it comes to averting the sequester. democrats want to raise taxes. republicans say they don't wan
senate and harry reid is in no position to point fingers at people for inaction, right? >> we ought to pass a budget and we're going to pass a budget this year. but let's also lack at the fact that there's not a single plan out there. i've been involved in every one of these bipartisan plans that hasn't said, you need about, on the minimum, about $1.2 trillion if you're going to do a new revenue, if you're going to do a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. i'm all for believing we have boot got to do more entitlement reform, but we have to do more revenues as well. and opposed to going through all of these stupid cuts, not only have we heard about 750,000 lost jobs, but in certain cases, we'll cost the taxpayers money. when we buy ten tanks, we get a volume discount. we'll break those contracts. when you do four years of cancer research, and don't get the first three years, you'll flush that. that's less meat and eggs going to the grocery store, driving up grocery prices. this was set up to be the stupidest of all options. whoever dreamed it up, who knows at this point, but at this p
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)